Amend Constitution to fix campaign cash problem: column

In striking down overall spending limits on personal campaign contributions this week, the Supreme Court in McCutcheon v. FEC once again equated spending money in support of political candidates with free speech protected by the First Amendment. It was the latest and best argument for amending the Constitution to overturn the court's 1976 ruling that campaign spending is free speech, and go to public financing of all elections.

The court's decision might sound reasonable in theory, but it's loony in reality, and here's a dumbed-down explanation why:

Before McCutcheon, you could spend no more than $48,600 in combined contributions to all candidates, and no more than $5,200 on an individual candidate, counting primary and general elections. The total limit on spending on political causes was $123,200 per election cycle. The court kept the individual limit but removed aggregate limits.

Now, let's say you have money to burn and decide to use it to passionately advance a cause. You figure that if you donate the maximum to at least one candidate - incumbent or challenger - in each of the 435 House and 36 Senate seats in play this year, you'll at least get the ear of some of them to make your case. That's the cost of nearly $2.5 million, depending on how many races involve primaries.

Money vs. letter

Then, let's say you ask your neighbor to join your cause by writing a letter to each of the same candidates, asking for the chance to meet with them at their convenience to argue the same cause. Is there any doubt who would get a better response? Most likely, your neighbor would get a form letter from his or her congressman or senator - and no response at all from the others.

That's the difference between "free speech" and bought-and-paid-for speech. It's the difference between speaking and being listened to. You can go to Washington, stand on the National Mall and shout demands at the Capitol. That's free speech, but it won't get you into a congressman's office. A maxed-out campaign contribution almost certainly will.

It's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about candidates of both parties spending an inordinate amount of time grubbing for money and rewarding those who give it. Conservative Republicans have the billionaire Koch brothers, who've already spent $30 million on Senate and House races this election cycle. Liberal Democrats have billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer, whose pledge to spend $100 million on like-minded candidates prompted a night-long series of Armageddon-like speeches by Senate Democrats trying to outdo each other on the threat of climate change.

Growth industry

The corrupt system is a growth industry for lobbyists, fundraising consultants, pollsters, ad producers, direct-mail specialists, websites, and radio and TV stations. If you made politicians swear on a Bible, most would probably say they despise it. Even so, two arguments make the case that public financing will never replace what we've got.

The first is that incumbents usually have a big advantage over challengers. Though a few lawmakers have been upset in party primaries by challengers supported lavishly but indirectly by independent groups, there's no reason to think many incumbents would give up the current system for an arrangement in which anyone who runs is funded from the public purse.

The second is that public financing would give lawmakers the freedom to ignore their constituents on narrow-interest issues. To the contrary, I'd argue, it would give them more time and leeway to make decisions based on what's best for their constituency at large, without worrying about how an obscure vote might offend a small but well-financed interest group.

This much is certain: Nothing is going to change until there's another scandal like Watergate, which prompted the reforms that are now unraveling. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a longtime advocate of campaign-finance reform, said Wednesday of the court's ruling: "There will be scandals because of this, I guarantee it." I hope he's right, because it's going to take something really ugly to rouse the American people enough to demand that the endless flood of private money into politics be stemmed.

The late California State Assembly speaker Jesse Unruh coined the saying, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." The Supreme Court just gave Unruh's ghost a high-five. But the milk is going to sour. I guarantee it.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Amend Constitution to fix campaign cash problem: column

In striking down overall spending limits on personal campaign contributions this week, the Supreme Court in McCutcheon v. FEC once again equated spending money in support of political candidates with

A link to this page will be included in your message.

Join Our Team!

If you are interested in working for an innovative media company, you can learn more by visiting: